I know that the war on drugs doesn’t get much press anymore. I suppose this could be due to shifting priorities in these post-9/11 times, but I often suspect that this lack of interest can also be attributed to the open secret — prohibitionists do not even want to acknowledge it, let alone discuss or debate it — that the war on drugs has become (as if it was not always such) untenable.
Back in the 1970s and 80s, prohibitionists had a seemingly endless arsenal of talking points in defense of the drug war. But that once impermeable wall of rhetoric began to crumble in the 1990s as the drug policy reform movement matured, setting aside its “hippie” roots in favor of a more pragmatic approach.
Drug policy reform is no longer about peoples’ right to get high on whatever intoxicants they may choose, an assertion that made it easy for prohibitionists to put reformers on the defensive. Now that drug policy reform has become a crusade against the black market and the gangsterism it fosters, it is the prohibitionists who are on the defensive.
Even though we have maintained the logical upper hand for over a decade, we must never waiver in our efforts to bring the industries and markets of the underground economy out of the shadows and into the light. We must continue to harsh on the prohibitionists and the horrors of prohibition.
One method that works very well but is hardly ever employed by reformers are emotional appeals on behalf of protecting our children from drug dealers and this system that allows them to continue to operate their low-risk, high-profit, regulation and tax-free enterprises in our childrens’ schools.
A few choice harshing points for the thoughtful reformers’ arsenal:
Please feel free to plagiarize the above. I don’t even care about receiving credit as long as I get to see other reformers putting it to good use. And remember, the war on drugs is the “drug problem,” masquerading as a solution to itself. Just like Prohibition (1919-1933 R.I.P.).
Sure, the Bible says, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” (Exodus 20:13, KJV), but the Good Book also says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, KJV) and “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:14-15, KJV) .
Reverend Pat Robertson has apologized for the threatening and offensive remarks he made regarding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on the Monday, August 22, 2005 edition of The 700 Club.
In an August 24, 2005 press release entitled, Pat Robertson Clarifies His Statement Regarding Hugo Chavez, the Reverend wrote, “Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.”
And, as of right now, 11:55pm on August 25, 2005, the AP and Reuters headlines are:
I did find a National Review Online column by Byron York entitled, Does Pat Robertson Matter? and a US News and World Report article called, Pat Robertson talks foreign policy, which were both rather interesting. But, for the most part, the Reverend’s “on-air, off-the-cuff call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez” tempest in a teapot is now old news — and it’s even older news when you consider the 75 year-old Reverend’s already well-established reputation for saying outrageous things on his television program (one might even call Reverend Robertson “the Rush Limbaugh of TV preachers,” but his average audience share of 863,000 kind of pales in comparison to Mr. Limbaugh’s 20 million loyal listeners).
I posted a rather long article about this controversy on August 24, 2005. I had originally set out to write a brief commentary, but while I was perusing numerous regurgitations of the newswire, checking my facts and quotations (as I slowly came to the realization that I wasn’t really all that shocked or outraged), I began to sense this groundswell of massive wrath, judgment and condemnation, so I decided to simply report that instead.
I also posted that article over at Blogcritics where the tedium of a discussion in which almost everyone was in agreement about the offensiveness of Reverend Robertson’s latest foot-in-mouth moment was only broken when commenters began drifting off-topic.
On the Monday, August 23, 2005 edition of “The 700 Club,” Reverend Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition who was also a 1988 candidate for the Republican nomination for president, said that Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, would make his nation “a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.” And then he went on, inciting an international firestorm, with remarks that Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel called “terrorist statements.”
“We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with … You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop,” said Reverend Robertson.
Mr. Rangel said the U.S. response to Reverend Robertson’s comments would be a test of American anti-terrorism policies, “The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country.” Mr. Rangel also said, “This is a huge hypocrisy to maintain an anti-terrorist line and at the same time have such terrorist statements as these made by Christian preacher Pat Robertson coming from the same country.”
While speaking with reporters in Montego Bay, Jamaica, Mr. Chavez compared Reverend Robertson and other critics of his government to the “rather mad dogs with rabies,” that chased after the main characters in Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote.
Mr. Chavez has, on numerous occasions, accused the United States of backing a plan to assassinate him, an accusation that Bush administration officials have denied.
Mr. Chavez regularly criticizes President Bush and the U.S., calling President Bush “Mr. Danger,” and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “the imperial lady.” The U.S. has accused Mr. Chavez of behaving in an undemocratic manner, but Ms. Rice was careful not to call him any names during a trip to Latin America earlier this year.
Mr. Chavez has threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if it supports any efforts to overthrow him, which is no small threat when the price of gasoline is hovering around $3 per gallon. Venezuelan exports account for 8% (1.3 million barrels per day) of the U.S. total supply of oil.
Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela’s ambassador to the U.S. said, “We are concerned about the safety of the president.” Mr. Alvarez said that steps should be taken to guarantee Mr. Chavez’s safety whenever he visits the United States. Mr. Chavez is expected to travel to New York next month for a special session of the U.N. General Assembly.
In the past, the U.S. was believed to have been involved in the 1963 assassination of South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem. The U.S. has also been accused of attempting to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
On February 18, 1976, President Gerald Ford issued an executive order prohibiting any U.S. government employee from engaging in political assassinations.
Distance Without Denouncement
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon isn’t in the business of killing foreign leaders, but did not condemn Reverend Robertson for his remarks. “He’s a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.
Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have linked Mr. Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro as troublemakers in unstable democracies in Latin America. Traveling home from Paraguay and Peru earlier this month, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters, “There certainly is evidence that both Cuba and Venezuela have been involved in the situation in Bolivia in unhelpful ways.”
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Reverend Robertson’s remarks about Mr. Chavez were “inappropriate,” but did not denounce them. “This is not the policy of the United States government,” Mr. McCormack said, “We do not share his views.”
Mr. McCormack was noncommittal in his response to the question of whether the rest of the world might presume that Reverend Robertson spoke for a sizable share of the Republican Party, if not expressly for President Bush. “I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are,” Mr. McCormack said. “They’re the expression of one citizen.”
Christians Respond
The Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition have, thus far, made no comments.
National Clergy Council president, Reverend Rob Schenck released a statement saying Reverend Robertson should “immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law.”
Reverend Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said that he and “most evangelical leaders” would disassociate themselves from such “unfortunate and particularly irresponsible” comments. Reverend Cizik also expressed concern for Christian aid workers and missionaries, “It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with U.S. intelligence agencies.”
Reverend Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said that Reverend Robertson endangered evangelical missionaries in Venezuela because “if this dictator starts to think of evangelicals as people who are gunning for him, that could be difficult for missionaries there.”
In California, Reverend Kevin Mannoia, chaplain at Azusa Pacific University, compared Reverend Robertson’s comments to those of Islamic extremists, “We complain about the Islamic fanatics making statements like that.” he said, calling Reverend Robertson’s statement, “an extreme, fanatical reaction that is not representative of the Christian faith in general and the evangelical movement in particular. It’s out of line and inappropriate and should not be made by a serious person in a serious forum.”
Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA, said that Reverend Robertson’s comments made no sense, “It defies logic that a clergyman could so casually dismiss thousands of years of Judeo-Christian law, including the commandment that we are not to kill,” he remarked.
Reverend Jesse Jackson denounced Reverend Robertson’s remarks as “morally reprehensible and dangerously suggestive.” Reverend Jackson also called for a Federal Communications Commission investigation, “This is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame,” he said, referring to the infamous “wardrobe malfunction” that caused pop singer Janet Jackson’s breast to be exposed during the live broadcast of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
Mvume Dandala, general secretary of the All Africa Conference of Churches said, “No matter how he tries to justify it, Robertson’s public demand that the United States kill Chavez is simply a tragic betrayal of the Gospel.”
Others Chime In
Media Matters for America, a media watchdog group, sent a letter to ABC Family, urging the network to cease carrying “The 700 Club.”
In an August 23, 2005 statement, ABC Family said the company was “contractually obligated to air ‘The 700 Club’ and has no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests. ”
Former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole criticized Reverend Robertson, calling his comments “stupid” and “ludicrous,” and suggested that the Reverend should apologize “very quickly.”
Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere said, “It was an incredibly stupid statement and has no reflection on reality.”
Democrats called the Bush administration’s responses tepid, and said that it lends credence to the notion that the White House doesn’t want to offend some of its most loyal supporters. Democratic political consultant Steve McMahon said, “It seems they are shuffling their feet when they should be running away from what Pat Robertson said. That this president, who projects himself as brave and bold, doesn’t want to stand up to his own right wing is ironic.'’
The Bush administration shares many of Reverend Robertson’s views on several issues, such as stem cell research, abortion and same-sex marriage, and his mostly conservative, evangelical audience is an essential part of President Bush’s political base.
The Reverend Backpedals
On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 Reverend Robertson said that his remarks about Mr. Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Venezuelan president.
“I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out,’” Reverend Robertson said on the “The 700 Club” program, “And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time.”
Unintended Fallout?
Because of Reverend Robertson’s death threat, Mr. Chavez could see his popularity increase, according to Venezuela’s top polling company, Datanalisis.
Reverend Robertson’s remarks will lead more Venezuelans to believe Mr. Chavez’s claims about the Bush administration trying to kill him, said Datanalisis director, Luis Vicente Leon, “The evangelist’s declarations are terrible for the U.S. in that they totally back up Chavez,'’ he said, “It is absolutely going to have the opposite effect on Chavez than the U.S. wants. It’s something that resonates with the country’s poor.'’ The additional support may also help Mr. Chavez’s ruling coalition extend its majority in congress in Venezuela’s December elections.
In a May poll conducted by Datanalisis, 71% of Venezuelans said they support Mr. Chavez, which is an increase from 67% percent in April. Mr. Leon declined to comment about how much of a boost Mr. Chavez could get from Reverend Robertson’s comments.
The Reverend’s Influence
The scope of Reverend Robertson’s influence has been the subject of much debate, with some saying that the Reverend’s clout with US evangelicals has waned, while others say that he still has prestige with religious conservatives through his Christian Broadcasting Network and as a recognized leader in the push to get conservative judges confirmed.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Reverend Robertson’s syndicated television program has drawn an average of 863,000 viewers a day during the 2004-2005 television season.
However, the Reverend’s electoral reach was at its peak during the 1988 presidential campaign in which he won primary elections in Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada and Washington, but captured only 15% of his home state, Virginia. After the Super Tuesday contests, he was out of the running.
One leader, who spoke to the Los Angeles Times on condition of anonymity because he said he respected the Reverend’s past ministry said, “He’s an old man and there’s a group of old women and old men who watch him. The spokespeople for evangelicalism are significantly distanced from him politically and spiritually. The Moral Majority days are long gone. It’s a different world.”
Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Reverend Robertson had “tremendous authority in the minds and hearts of about 20% of the American electorate.”
Alec Foege, author of The Empire God Built: Inside Pat Robertson’s Media Machine — who suggested that Reverend Robertson’s statements were “along the lines of what Rush Limbaugh does.” — said of the Reverend’s influence outside of his core audience, “he’s not at his peak.” Mr. Foege believes the Reverend’s peak was reached around the time of the national election of 1996.
Allen D. Hertzke, professor of political science and director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma said, “Pat Robertson is rather a marginal figure politically these days. He’s not taken seriously by the main leaders of Christian conservatism.”
Dr. Hertzke, who has written books on religion and politics, said that Reverend Robertson’s status now depends more on his charisma as an evangelical preacher than his political acumen,
“His ministry survives in spite of, not because of, his more outrageous statements on politics,” he said.
The Reverend’s Greatest “Hits”
Reverend Robertson is quite familiar with controversy, having verbally placed his foot into his mouth on several previous occasions.
The Reverend has denounced “out of control” federal judges as a greater threat to the fabric of the country than “a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,” and beseeched
God to create a few more openings on the U.S. Supreme Court.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, in which the Reverend supported President Bush’s re-election, he said he had expressed to Mr. Bush his misgivings about going to war with Iraq. On CNN, Reverend Robertson said that Mr. Bush told him, “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”
The Reverend — and God, too — endorsed Mr. Bush’s re-election, “George Bush has the favor of heaven,” he said. However, Reverend Robertson apparently disagrees with Mr. Bush’s assessment that Islam is at heart a religion of peace.
The Reverend has said, “Islam, at least at its core, teaches violence.” He also said that he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships.
Shortly after 9/11, the Reverend agreed with fellow evangelist Jerry Falwell (the man who “outed” Tinky-Winky, the purple — and allegedly gay — Teletubbie) that feminists, gays, abortionists and civil libertarians were to blame for the attacks.
The Reverend often appears to be rather obsessed with homosexuals, whom he has called “self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle.”
In 1998, the Reverend responded to an Orlando, Florida campaign to fly flags in celebration of National Gay Pride Month with a warning to the city, “You’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.”
There is a master post covering this story over at Blogcritics, which is a great place to find interesting and unique reporting, commentary and discussion.
In an August 5, 2005, article for the Seattle Post Intelligencer, columnist Joel Connely quoted D.E.A. administrator Karen Tandy on the arrest of Canadian marijuana activist Marc Emery:
“Today’s arrest of Mark (sic) Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and the founder of a marijuana legalization group, is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement.”
“Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery’s illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.”
But according to US attorney Todd Greenberg, this arrest was not supposed to about Mr. Emery’s politics, “The focus of this case is on the drug trafficking of Marc Emery. It is not about his political activities, nor his campaigns for office. Nor is it focused on his magazine.”
Mr. Emery has been selling marijuana seeds over the Internet since 1994. For over a decade Emery Seeds has operated out in the open, in the full view of the Canadian authorities and was considered to be the largest marijuana seed distributor in the world.
Mr. Emery is also a well known political activist in the fight against marijuana prohibition. The media calls him “The Prince of Pot.” He is the leader of the BC Marijuana Party, the publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and the host of The Prince of Pot on POT-TV, which he also owns.
According to Special Agent in Charge Rodney G. Benson of the D.E.A., “The tentacles of the Mark Emery criminal enterprise reached out across North America to include all 50 United States and Canada,” he said in a July 29, 2005 D.E.A. news release, “Mr. Emery utilized the Internet to sell his marijuana seeds throughout this country to customers no matter their age. He directed his business with efficiency, was motivated by greed, and will now be prosecuted for this illegal activity.”
Selling pot seeds is not considered to be an “arrestable” offense in Canada.
At a news conference held after Mr. Emery was granted bail, Mr. Emery’s lawyer, John Conroy said, “For nine years he’s been doing this quite openly. They’ve known about it, the local authorities haven’t done anything about it.” Mr Conroy also said that Mr. Emery has long had tacit permission from Canadian authorities to sell seeds, adding that even Health Canada has told people who have been prescribed medical marijuana to buy seeds on the Internet.
The US Marijuana Party has called for the Resignation of D.E.A. Administrator Karen Tandy. Loretta Nall, President of the U.S. Marijuana Party writes in an August 5, 2005 blog entry , “Tandy needs to clarify her remarks and state publicly that the DEA is not targeting protected political activity. If she cannot or will not do that, she should resign. Targeting political opponents is not Tandy’s job.”
Ms. Nall’s article opens with the words, “Please distribute far and wide.”
I now pass this news along in the blogosphere, hoping that this story will spread far and wide.
Congratulations to Blogcritics.org upon reaching the 10 million unique visitors mark, just before their third anniversary (August 12, 2005).
For those not familiar with Blogcritics.org, whose tagline is, “A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, technology, and politics,” it is a large group blog (1058 authors) that is also a news service that is also a community.
I originally stumbled across Blogcritics.org in November of 2004 while I was looking for ways to let people on the Internet know that I am here. The search string “blog increase visibility” brought me to a Blogcritics.org post entitled, Are You a Blogcritic? which was written by Blogcritics.org publisher, Eric Olsen.
I did not really think of myself as a Blogcritic when I emailed Mr. Olsen with my name, blog URL and primary areas of interest, but I soon learned that that is exactly what I am and I have been posting articles and comments there on a semi-regular basis ever since.
I am not certain of how much actual — in the marketing sense — public exposure Blogcritics has provided for my little corner of the blogosphere (of course there is always that linkie thingie), but I did get what I was really after, which was not really publicity, but people with whom to share interesting discussions.
And the people are the reason why I keep returning to Blogcritics.org. They are a mostly smart, always interesting (and never without opinions and observations) mix of authoritarians, libertarians, Bible thumpers, proselytizing atheists, elitists, dilettantes, conspiracy theorists, doomsayers, pundits, pedants, polemicists, partisans, real intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals and wannabe intellectuals, like yours truly.
I may not always agree with what these wonderfully diverse folks have to say, but one does not find enlightenment in a vacuum and mutual admiration societies bore me to tears. Anyone who feels the same way ought to consider joining Blogcritics.org.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Sep » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave is powered by
WordPress.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
15 queries. 0.288 seconds
Original Articles Copyright 2004-2010 by Margaret Romao Toigo